This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

What’s wrong with making love and war?

By Daniel DaleStaff Reporter

Fri., June 4, 2010

Their bodies could have provoked desire, which could have produced sex, and so, before members of Britain’s Women’s Royal Naval Service were permitted to attend social events on Royal Navy ships during World War II, they were forced to don garments known as “blackouts,” “rigid black knickers with stout elastic at waist and knee.”

On land, continues historian Paul Fussell in his book Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War, male and female dwellings were separated by high steel-mesh fences topped with barbed wire. Written British policy, meanwhile, prohibited not only any “caress” involving a soldier in uniform but also gestures as innocent as holding hands — even if the hands-holders were husband and wife.

No, wait. That is written Canadian policy. In 2010.

The case of Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard, sacked as Canada’s top Afghanistan commander May 29 over an “alleged inappropriate personal relationship,” was less about sex than about a superior (allegedly) sleeping with a subordinate. But it nonetheless brought attention to a truth that may surprise many in this proudly permissive nation: officially, at least, our military is prudish.

It is prudish even compared to the bastion of conservatism that is the United States military. Where sexual orientation is concerned, Canada is progressive: we began allowing homosexuals to serve openly in 1992; the U.S., for now at least, continues to enforce the discriminatory policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW

We’re ahead of the game, too, where sex as in gender is concerned: Canada permitted women to serve in ground combat units in the late 1980s; the U.S. still bans them. And the Americans, as usual, are far more concerned than us with so-called sexual deviance: the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice still makes adultery and sodomy punishable infractions.

Yet when it comes to plain old sex itself, it is Canada that has the more restrictive policy. American soldiers in Afghanistan are told that sex is “heavily discouraged.” Canadian troops are told that it is prohibited — as is, according to Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5019-1, other “conduct that may be considered unprofessional in a military context,” such as kissing and hand-holding.

In theory, the policy applies only to a soldier “in uniform in public.” Military spokesperson Cdr. Hubert Genest, however, says that, in his view, “in public” covers basically anywhere soldiers happen to be.

“Well,” says Genest, “ ‘in public,’ it means what can be seen by anyone. . . I’d like to remove the possibility of you thinking that, behind closed doors on a military base, because the public can’t see, we are acting differently. No. ‘In public’ means, certainly, outside a base, but inside a base I would argue that the regulations are even tougher. Because we’re seen by our chain of command, our peers, and we have to lead by example. So: it’s everywhere. That’s how I see it.”

A rule, then, that as written forbids sex “in public” also bans sex behind closed doors?

“Behind closed doors?” Genest chortles indignantly at the suggestion. “Those who do that do that at their own risk. I hope it doesn’t happen.”

Genest takes pains to note that the no-sex policy is administrative, designed as a preventative measure, rather than disciplinary; violations are not tried in military courts. But he also defends the policy as essential. The military cares so much about soldiers’ conjugal relations, he says, because it must maintain the effectiveness and mission-readiness of its units.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW

Asked to explain how an in-between-missions romp by, say, one of the military’s 3,000 married couples would jeopardize effectiveness or mission-readiness, Genest struggles. He then refers his questioner back to the policy, which does not help.

Military historian Jack Granatstein, who does not believe soldiers should be permitted to have sex with other soldiers while in combat theatres, does better. He says even hookups between soldiers of the same rank can “create jealousies and difficulties.

“Anything that impedes the development of good relations in the unit or anything that might impede its combat efficiency, simply must be controlled and regulated.”

There is no evidence, though, that the U.S. military’s fighting fearsomeness has been diminished by its comparative sexual permissiveness. A liberalization of our policy would quite possibly be a non-event, neither positively nor negatively affecting performance, says retired Col. Michel Drapeau — especially because, as Granatstein acknowledges, our soldiers are already finding ways to fulfill their needs. From the half-jokes soldiers at Kandahar Airfield make to journalists about after-hours liaisons in light armoured vehicles to the condoms available on base that are, wink wink, for troops going on leave, there is ample if circumstantial evidence that, like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the no-sex policy is merely forcing soldiers to hide and lie.

Paul Robinson, a University of Ottawa public and international affairs professor who served in intelligence in the British army and later in Canada’s reserves, says “maybe by prohibiting things you might reduce some of it, even if you don’t stop it.” On the other hand, he continues, “Having rules which are clearly unrealistic does tend to bring the rules into disrepute. There’s a danger in having rules which everyone knows are being broken. Because then it simply becomes arbitrary who happens to be caught.”

Drapeau, who served in the Canadian Forces for 34 years and now practises law and teaches at the University of Ottawa, contends the military should go “back to square one” on the policy. At the very least, he says, the wording of the rules should be loosened to acknowledge the differences between the various types of romantic interactions and the differing circumstances in which they take place.

“That policy is black and white; there’s no shade of gray,” Drapeau says. “A kiss on the cheek with your own spouse is prohibited. Okay, maybe when you’re standing in the receiving line and the Queen is coming down the tarmac, it’s not the time to kiss your wife — but maybe it is. Whatever.”

More from The Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com